Ethics question...

[zencoder]

Hmmmmm. That'll take some thought.

Off the cuff I would say no, it's not possible, because there is no constant to compare it to.

It's the old joke of 'what color is the sky in YOUR reality?'

[zencoder]

For additional input, go watch the scene in The Matrix where Mouse discusses the possibility that the machines digital representation of the flavor of Tasty Wheat could be incorrect.

[Negative]

If you're going to depend on MemorY for ethics... :s

Gah, it's not that difficult...
- To some, ethics (or rather: morals) are "written in stone": they have been written out previously, and those are the "laws" we follow.
- To some, ethics are "placed into us": we're not born with them, but if we kneel down enough and facing the right direction, they'll be placed into us.
- To some, ethics are programmed into us: we have to follow them. And those who don't are just retarded.
- To some, ethics are The Law: it says so in Article 4.71 of Law Book number 5766, and the people who wrote those laws were smart, so that's what we believe in.


I could write 7 thousand more of those variations, but in the end it all comes down to these three:

- God
- Yourself
- Others

Make your choice.

*Personal opinion* To some, ethics may be objective - that's retarded. There are so many fine lines... even (your) god would get confoozled.
I don't need anyone to tell me what is right or wrong (answer from the christians: "of course not! God planted that in your soul!") - I have my own definition of right and wrong, and I try to live by it. If I don't, I'll have to come clear with myself and my conscious.

In other words: it's just as objective or subjective as yourself. There's no right answer... there's no answer at all.

[nihil]

A new question: is it possible to argue an objective, i.e. undeniable, point in a non-objective system?

Possibly, hard to think of anything stunningly intellectual at this point, but I would have thought that environmental variables and chance could fall into that category?

Errrrrrrrrrrr, "p1$$ me off and I will nuke your a$$" comes to mind..............totally objective and undeniable

[Negative]

A new question: is it possible to argue an objective, i.e. undeniable, point in a non-objective system?

What's the matter with you?...

What if I tell you that in my world, 1 does not equal 1? Are we going to argue? If you would be in my world, you wouldn't. If you're not, you would. It's that hard... gah.

[Egaladeist]

It's quite simple zencoder...if laws/ethics/morals/conscience thought do not exist outside of man...then if I kill you neither god/nature/or anything else will condemn me for that action if I simply avoid getting caught by man.

To even suppose that you are right is to negate the very concept of justice...as long as you can escape the laws of man...you can do anything you want without consequence. Go ahead....go into an alley and slice someone up tonight...it's Ok...you won't get caught...just pick the first person you see.
You could blow up a school of children, rape a thousand women, murder a million people...as long as you don't get caught...nature is amoral, justice does not exist, and death will absolve you!

I'm glad it's not that way...really...for both our sakes...yours and mine.

Eg

EDIT: The planet, the universe, and everything in and of it are tools, which we use, modify, etc...for our benefit...we do the same with our conscience, our emotions, etc...we are by our nature users and manipulators...we modify our life, our comfort, our surroundings, and our morality to suit our purposes...this, however, does not mean what we change affects how things really are or that any of these changes/modifications mean anything substantial to the whole...they only affect us in the here and now.
Anyone who has read my posts knows my concept of god and justice are very different than the norm...to me justice/morality/etc...exists much like the principles of cause and effect ...if you do this then that is going to happen...and you cannot escape it any more than you can any natural law...there are natural consequences to our actions that are not dependant upon or subject to the laws of man.

If nature/god is amoral...and morality/ethics are nothing more than a construct of man...with no penalties occuring apart from man...that it all is subjective...then, it has no more value than I like peanut butter and you don't...it's a sham...why are we imposing our morals on other nations...why do we even care...their society let's them do this or that...let them...it's OK...we are products of our society's morals and so are they...if they want to kill their people...let them...that's what their morality is...they are doing nothing wrong...because the concept of what is wrong does not exist apart from the society that created it...our morality would not apply to them and their society.

Like I said...I'm glad it's not that way...really...for both our sakes...yours and mine.

There are natural consequences to our actions...that are not dependant upon man or his opinions...and it's really quite simple, but this is neither the time or the place to discuss, in detail, issues that would fall upon deaf ears.

[rcgreen]

is it possible to argue an objective, i.e. undeniable, point in a non-objective system?

I can't imagine how. This is why governments are finding it harder to
stay in power without resort to force. They want a "flexible" system of ethics
for their own policies(pragmatism), but insist that ordinary citizens must
respect the law as if it were sacred.

University professors want to teach that there is no real definition of right
and wrong, but would be indignant if one of those students put that
philosophy into practice and robbed the professor.

in the end it all comes down to these three:

- God
- Yourself
- Others

Make your choice.

Exactly. And it just may be that one of those systems is metaphysically true
while the others are truly wrong and immoral. So long as there exists the
possibility of an objective system of ethics, there is always the possibility
that my actions may come under the scrutiny of someone more powerful than I am.
And if that person happens to own that system, then, in spite of all my
protests, I am SOL.

[zencoder]

Eg, I like your sentiment, but I think it is naive. Perhaps you've lead a sheltered life? I'm not trying to be condescending or rude, just honest.

There is nothing 'just' about a single mother (whose husband left because he was mentally unbalanced and abusive) contracting an incurable and debilitating disease, leaving the child in her teen years to care for her remaining parent as she herself should have been cared for.

There is nothing 'moral, just, or humane' about a massive tectonic shift causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, orphaning millions of spouses, children, and family members from their loved ones.

These are both occurences in nature. I could go on, but I won't. I'm sorry, but your perspective is naive and filtered through the beliefs that were instilled in you (through parents, society, your throwing off the beliefs of both the previous, or whatever). That's not a BAD thing...it's a true and human thing. The same goes for me, and everyone else. The difference is whether you can wrap your brain around the concept. It is not right for me to slice someone up in an alley, as you (hypothecitcally) suggest, because I think it is wrong, and so does most of society. For some people, the only thing making it not right is the fear of incarceration or capital punishment. Don't believe me? Spend a few years wearing a police uniform; your perspective will change.

But nature is not just. Justice is a human ideal, based upon intellectual and emotional thoughts, morals and values, which are all the long learned lessons of 'survival of the fittest' in it's many variations. There is no justice in a volcano wiping out an entire civilization, and there is no justice a nutcase drowning her own children, and I doubt ANYONE will agree with you.

If the big strong bully caveman kills the small, smarter, weaker caveman to take his food because big caveman is hungry and tired and can't kill his dinner, but small caveman is smart and builds a trap and catches dinner, is he unjust? In our society he is. In his, it's a matter of "them's the brakes".

I agree with Negative 100%^3

Yourself
God
Others

How you take those three sets of beliefs (internally believed or externally imposed) and live them is up to each individual.

[Egaladeist]

Hi zencoder,

You can consider me naive if you will...you can even state that no one will agree with me and that is fine too...my purpose is not to convert the masses to my way of thinking...and I accepted a long time ago that most people simply don't care anyways.

Your disagreement is neither here nor there because no one can say with absolute certainty what anything is or is not...which is why Epictetus once said " It is impossible to get a person to understand that which he thinks he already knows, the first step to knowledge is, therefore, getting rid of thinking one knows what one does not. "

Here's an exercise for you on knowing...

There once was a man who held an apple in his hand and asked his pupil what it was...
the pupil said " It's an apple, Master. "
" Do you not know that a name is but a designation that we give objects for the purpose of communication and mutual consideration? Yes, we call this an apple...just as your mother called you Peter...but your mother could have called you John and you would be the same...neither Peter nor John...I ask you again, what is this object I hold in my hand? "

To make this rather long exercise short...we know how to use things, manipulate things, how they work, and to what we can apply them...but we really don't know what anything is...other than the false knowledge we retain from the designation of names. Just because you know that the object over there is called an apple and that you can eat it, and make a pie from it, doesn't mean you know anything substantial at all.

Eg

[Draxx]

What's the matter with you?...

What if I tell you that in my world, 1 does not equal 1? Are we going to argue? If you would be in my world, you wouldn't. If you're not, you would. It's that hard... gah.

Ahh, but I have a point, I am going to tie this in a little later.

It's quite simple zencoder...if laws/ethics/morals/conscience thought do not exist outside of man...then if I kill you neither god/nature/or anything else will condemn me for that action if I simply avoid getting caught by man.

Wouldn't that be: if ethics/etc. were outside of man, then there would be a force that would condemn me for killing? Whichever, why are laws included? Aren't laws merely an attempt to make ethics (which as we agreed are subjective) into an objective form?

I can't imagine how. This is why governments are finding it harder to stay in power without resort to force. They want a "flexible" system of ethics for their own policies(pragmatism), but insist that ordinary citizens must respect the law as if it were sacred.

So, it would not be possible to have an objective point in a non-objective reality. OK.

So, if it is not possible to hold an objective, i.e. undeniable, point in a non-objective system, and ethics/morals are a non-objective system, then how can we argue an undeniable moral point?